This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

Removed Edmund has also been connected with the Truelove Eyre legend, and some sources, impossible to confirm, insist that he was the famous knight's grandfather. There is no shred of evidence (beyond circumstantial) to support this claim, but it persists nonetheless. as being unencyclopedic. --Henrygb 08:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support as requester (should be obvious, but ...) Angus McLellan(Talk) 14:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Hardly a difficult decision. It's awkward to put numerals in the names of pre-Norman English kings anyway. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Support: my understanding is that numerical names didn't occur until the reign of Edward III of England anyway and that numericals have been added to earlier kings posthumously. Unfortunately the system doesn't work if you include the Saxon kings of England because then Edward the Elder would become Edward I, and Edward I of England would become Edward IV. -- Roleplayer 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. In addition to the refs below, Rulers and Governments of the World (a three-volume work) lists him as "Edmund Ironside", sans ordinal. --SigPig 04:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Support: I can't claim any great knowledge, but I have only ever come accross him as being refered to as Edmund Ironside. Alun 11:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm removing my vote, I think both arguments have merit and as I have said I am no sort of authority and am ambivalent about this proposal, as such I think it would be best not to support or oppose the suggested change. Alun 04:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Naming Conventions, which decide on the names used in articles, make it quite clear that monarchs, for consistency reasons, are listed using an ordinal. Exceptions, where a cognomen are used, are rare and are only used where the is international recognition of a name (e.g., Charlamagne, or confusion over ordinals (e.g., Henry the Lion, because he was both Henry III as Duke of Saxony and Henry XII as Duke of Bavaria). Where the monarch is not internationally known, and where there is no dispute over ordinal, the format used is to create a redirect page under the cognomen and have the name page at the ordinal format. That makes sense. The benefit of using ordinals rather than cognomens is that people can see a sequence. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So are we to use a mixture of ordinals and cognomen for different kings in the same order of succession? Surely that's just as confusing? -- Roleplayer 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That is why cognomens weren't used at all, except with the likes of Charlamagne, on WP until relately recently. WP has now decided to allow occasional usage, but they should be very occasional, very rare, special occasions. It makes more sense to place the monarch's page at the one with the ordinal, and use the cognomen as the redirect. It is far easier for people to know that Henry IV comes after Henry III and before Henry V, than to work out whether the guy they called The Bald was before or after The Brave, and whether he was around about the time of the guy they called The Great, who was before The Old, except in the case of The Old Pretender who was afterwards!!! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that avoiding that sort of confusion is why we have those succession box thingies and the ugly old "Monarch of England" template at the bottom of the page. Angus McLellan(Talk) 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's better not to confuse the two in the same order of succession. As I pointed out above, if ordinals were used for all Saxon English kings we run into trouble because there were three English kings called Edward before Edward I of England was even a twinkle in his mother's eye. -- Roleplayer 23:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Overwhelmingly known as such, there is no ambiguity and many of the pre-conquest monarchs already are at numeral-free names. Haukur 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. I can give my support to this one only because there are no other pre-Conquest kings with numerals in the title. There is no inconsistency, therefore (except for the inconsistency that exists between the enumeration of pre- and post-Conquest monarchs in the first place). The rule for such pre-Conquest monarchs should now be epithets and patronymics, not numerals. Srnec 00:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very new to this so apologies if I'm writing this in the wrong place, but I wish to question the veracity of a statement on the Edmund Ironside page. It asserts that Edmund's father (Ethelred) remarried twice after the death of Edmund's mother. I am aware of him remarrying once to Emma of Normandy, but to whom was the second of the two remarriages? As I'm a novice I didn't thinking it was my place to go altering text without at least asking for clarification first. Thanks, --Whitenoiseuk (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My rationale for requesting this move is entirely subjective, and is based on my recollection of what the books I read as child called Edmund. Edmund Ironside seems to come out ahead in ghits, and in gbooks, and the Edmund II's usually say Edmund II (Ironside), Edmund II Ironside, Edmund II known as Edmund Ironside, and the like. Conversely, Edmund Ironside references don't appear to mention Edmund II. In other words, you could know that the subject was called Edmund Ironside, but not Edmund II, whereas it would be very unlikely that you could know that subject as Edmund II only. Angus McLellan(Talk) 20:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm very new to this so apologies if I'm writing this in the wrong place, but I wish to question the veracity of a statement on the Edmund Ironside page( 1 Family 1st paragraph). It asserts that Edmund's father (Ethelred) remarried twice after the death of Edmund's mother. I am aware of him remarrying once to Emma of Normandy, but to whom was the second of the two remarriages? As I'm a novice I didn't thinking it was my place to go altering text without at least asking for clarification first, but I believe that although Ethelred was married twice he only remarried once. Thanks,--Whitenoiseuk (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Twice according to Barlow, Higham and everyone else I checked. First to Edmund's mother, who was probably Ælfgifu, Ealdorman Thored's daughter. Second to Edward the Confessor's mother, Emma of Normandy, also known as Ælfgifu. Angus McLellan(Talk) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. So am I right in thinking you're agreeing with me that the assertion that he remarried twice is incorrect and needs to be altered? --Whitenoiseuk (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was. No contemporary source names Edmund and Athelstan's mother. John of Worcester says she was Ælfgifu, daughter of Ealdorman Æthelberht. No ealdorman of that name is known, which probably means none existed as an ealdorman would be a surprising thing to miss. Ailred of Rielvaux says she was a daughter of Ealdorman Thored, but doesn't give her name. Thored, being a "Yorkshireman", fits quite well with Edmund's later interests. Williams' Æthelred the Unready, Higham's Death of Anglo-Saxon England, &c, go with Edmund's mother and Æthelred's first wife (of two) being probably-Ælfgifu, probably-daughter of Ealdorman Thored. Angus McLellan(Talk) 20:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Isabella Strachan, a biographer of Emma, suggests that some of Ethelred's children were the product of a handfast marriage with Ælfgifu, not to be confused with Ælfgifu his first wife. She also asserts that Edmund had five brothers, not three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.132.32 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"paving the way for Æthelred and his family to return to the throne, which they did but without opposition. In the process they forced Sweyn's son, Cnut, back to Denmark"

Shouldn't "but WITHOUT opposition" be "but WITH opposition", since Cnut was forced to leave? I hesitate to change this without input, since I don't knows the facts. Perhaps someone else would like to do the honors? 24.90.104.148 (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)